Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 163 KB, 1920x1080, engineering.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10370278 No.10370278 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why does this board hate engineering so much?

>> No.10370282

>>10370278
I hate engineering, but I'm an engineering student anyways. It's just too easy. But at the same time engineering is highly applicable which math and science is not.

>> No.10370286

There have been a few polls that showed majority of /sci/ is engineering majors. The others get asspained about this and the career success of engineers. They also fundamentally do not seem to understand what engineering even is. The real thing to note is that most of this board are undergrad plebs who literally don't know shit. Actual successful scientists and engineers don't hate each other like that, but this board is full of failures and people who feel the need to staunchly defend their own intelligence since it is their only redeeming quality.

>> No.10370287

They try to act like they're as knowledgeable as scientists when they aren't.

Example: Bill Nye

>> No.10370289

>>10370278
Engineers are usually the most philosophically and intellectual bankrupt people. There is nothing wrong with engineering though.

>> No.10370290

>>10370282
>too easy
spotted the brainlet

>> No.10370301

It's applicable

>> No.10370318

When the engineers don't understand the upper level math they just say its unnecessary and useless (which it mostly is for them) and bait math and physics majors who enjoy it with that sentiment. Maths application in engineering often will not make itself apparent in the lifetime of the mathematician who invented it.

>> No.10370327
File: 25 KB, 324x299, 1549600297465.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10370327

>>10370278
>Let me approximate that for you...

>> No.10370347

>>10370278
Anything applicable is hated here.

>> No.10370360

>>10370278
Not science or math.

>> No.10370436
File: 741 KB, 2378x998, Science & Engineering.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10370436

>>10370278
Intense Levels of Cope

>> No.10370439
File: 36 KB, 752x763, Psychology Science & Engineering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10370439

>>10370287
Scientists only collect data. Engineers do something useful with it.

>> No.10370464

>>10370439

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the media should interview a mechanical engineer about climate change

>> No.10370489

>>10370464
They interview people paid to say what they are paid to say.

>> No.10370500
File: 586 KB, 600x1029, 1539148586761.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10370500

>> No.10370947

>>10370439
>that picture
t. psychology student trying to not feel useless

>> No.10370949

>>10370278
They have no interest in the sciences and are more often than not myopic mouthbreathing manchildren

>> No.10371003

>>10370500
pi = sqrt(g)
e = pi - pi/10

>> No.10371004

>>10370278
Because it's not really science and is for all intents and purposes a craft.

>> No.10371012

But it just werks.

>> No.10371020

>>10371004
engineering is an art, especially EE design

>> No.10371035

>>10371020
fuck yes boy. EE is like a glorious puzzle. Imagine being paid 3 figures for doing fucking puzzles all day. It's quite literally the best. Theoretical science fags can't even compete.

>> No.10371075

>>10370286
This.

>> No.10371204

>>10370278
All in all their just another brick in the wall.

>> No.10371343

>>10370439
Holy shit, this is really a subtle psychology flex.

>the psychology major lowkey is snickering at the scientists and engineers bickering over shit while the psychology orchestrated the whole thing.

Psychology is based and redpilled.

>> No.10371400

>>10371035
>>10371020
You guys mean electrical or electronic engineering ? I'm kinda intrigued by both since I'm doing cs but always liked soldering shit and schematics and energy where my favourite from hs physics
What can I expect to be doing for classwork and as a job ?

>> No.10371402

>>10371400
Sorry bad for bad London it's 1am here

>> No.10371445

>>10370282
>Engineering is highly applicable which math and science is not

I mostly agree, except for when the science in question is physics. People around here constantly advise people to pick something like a CS major, or a math + CS major and definitely not anything to do with physics, or god forbid, major just in physics. The fact of the real world, however, is that every big league company like Samsung Electronics, Intel, IBM, General Electric, Siemens, Taiwan Semiconductors, etc. have physics PhDs. from the top to the bottom of the R&D chain. If you choose engineering, you might make a quick buck right out of school, but real progress in the field of semiconductors, electronics and optoelectronics is happening on the battle field of physics and you absolutely need the knowledge of QM, advanced solid state theory, semicond. physics you get in grad physics lectures to be able to understand what the fuck is happening at these places and how to inovate.

Of course, this assumes that you don't specialize in some self-serving sub-fields like particle or relativistic physics, but study stuff like CMP, quantum optics, etc. Fact of the matter is, these fields at the top are where the >300k starting meme is reality.

>> No.10371463

>>10370286
Pretty much. Regardless of that there are probably a few professional engineers in this board. But I doubt there is a single scientist with a job in this board

>> No.10371474

>>10371463
This board is also more conductive to engineers. Most questions asked are engineering/feasibility questions and the best threads involve aerospace engineering such as the SpaceX threads.

80% of the "science" threads are weak bait, schizos, and the occasional genuine theoretic question that gets 4 weak replies before dying off. It's just not a fun place for scientists to hang out in.

This leaves engineers like us to stay as the only legitimate posters

>> No.10371503

>>10371474
The problem is that those sort of threads should belong on /g/, but /g/ is a fucking shitfest of brandwar threads and shitposting in general about social news in the technology sector, so actual people interested in technology and engineering come here because is less toxic.
Unfortunately actual scientists don't post here much as you say, most are fucking larpers with no job and no degree dreaming of the singularity instead of trying to learn something or have a meaningful discussion.

>> No.10372092

>>10370439
Practically speaking, engineers do all four of these

>> No.10372100

Because they tend to be the most arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

What is the percentage of engineers that are libertarian, climate change denying anti-VAXers? It's way too big.

>> No.10372121

>>10370282
Let me guess, 1st/2nd year?

>> No.10372130
File: 30 KB, 752x763, econ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10372130

>>10370439
>>10371343

>> No.10372431

>>10372121
1st year Industrial Engineer. I think we are the hardest

>> No.10372624

Engineers are shitheads who sold out for money

They go straight to the gulag

>> No.10372664
File: 42 KB, 334x506, tuxedo hat pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10372664

Sour grape. They wanted to be the $300k starting. Chadgineers are.

>> No.10372674

>>10370439
First 3 are all science and not remotely related to psychology

>> No.10372758

>>10370286
>and the career success of engineers
What are you talking about? t. chem E fag

>> No.10372766

>>10370278
>typical engineers
That old man cheated his wife with that girl

>> No.10373077

>>10370278
because engineers are egotistical since they think they're smart because they have a degree that's much easier to complete than a physics or pure math degree.

>> No.10373099

Engineering is not science or math. This thread belongs in /diy/

>> No.10373121

>>10370278
Because this is a math and science board

>> No.10373123
File: 2.82 MB, 298x150, vince.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10373123

>>10372431

>> No.10373129

>>10372758
So not only are you a failure, but the idea of others not being failures is incomprehensible to you. Sounds about right.

>> No.10373133

>>10373121
this

engineering is just glorified diy and belongs in that respective board

>> No.10373273
File: 2.50 MB, 4208x2368, 1549759563498364823480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10373273

>>10370278
None of you fucks can do this though. So...

>> No.10373339

>>10370278
Homophobia

>> No.10373677

>>10370278
cuz we don't give a shit to paradoxes, theorems and other math gay shit and we make things happen

>> No.10373826

>>10370500
ee here. can confirm. i have unironically used sin(x)=x on the job.

>> No.10374674

>>10372431
As a first year student, maybe you should hold your tongue before speaking about something being difficult or not. Imagine someone writing their first "Hello World" and then proclaiming that coding is just glorified blogging.

>> No.10374679

>>10370278
because they have the gey

>> No.10375488

>>10373826
>sin(x)=x
The last time I saw that was in a derivation while I was in school.

>> No.10375987

>>10370439
>all science is just experimental
This reduces science down to running experiments rather than being the study of nature. I'm an engineering major, but science also encapsulates research into its application, into theory, into methods and mathematics, etc etc. It's not as self serving and "data collection" as you'd try and sell it to be.

In general, I think engineering majors are very reductionist to different fields because they see degrees and careers as the sum of responsibilities and checklists rather than a study whose methods and domain adapt to what needs to be done to further the field.

>> No.10375991

>>10373273
>none of you can do this
Are you kidding me? This is literally applying sophomore physics.

>> No.10376048

>>10375991
I'd have to google it. I remember learning it and would probably pick it back up again quickly.

The most important aspects of school, in my opinion, aren't that you can rattle off problems immediately from your head because you learned it 10 years ago. It's that you know where to look to find the answers that you don't remember in that moment. It's the equivalent to having job experience: the old guy might not know the answer to your question off-hand, but he damn well knows how to find the answer quickly.

>> No.10376186

>>10376048
I think the most important part of a science / engineering education is being able to figure things out from scratch. That's a combination of maturity and familiarity, and part of it is doing your work / gaining insight. It takes time. Nobody remembers everything, but class isn't about that; it's about being able to have it in reach without a lot of effort

>> No.10376212

>>10370278
Because being an engineer takes a lot of work. You can't just graduate and become an engineer, without any real experience you're just a glorified calculator. It's only after years and years working in different projects that you may actually start calling yourself an engineer.

Mathematicians hate this, because it's the complete opposite of what being a "mathematician is about." Experience is pretty much meaningless in math, which is all about logic. Furthermore, mathematicians aren't concerned with the results of their work, they just do it for the sake of it.

Physicists and other scientists also require some experience to actually, properly become masters of their discipline. However, nowadays physics is more about who you know and the funds you're getting, who's investing in your research... you could be the greatest physicist in the world, and without a research lab or university or whatever, something economically greater than you, then you're nothing.

>> No.10376225

>>10376212
>Mathematicians hate this, because it's the complete opposite of what being a "mathematician is about."
Dude, mathematicians don't like calling themselves mathematicians until you've got a good number of publications and at least a PhD under your belt.
> Experience is pretty much meaningless in math, which is all about logic.
This is a blatant misunderstanding of what "math" is. It's all about experience. It's all about problems. It's all about collaboration and bouncing ideas off of each other. Math isn't mechanical. It's mostly a creative effort, and in the most groundbreaking mathematics, there's an element of design (what's fundamental to my ideas, what isn't, what notions do I really need to make from scratch, and how will these structures play into my work, how will they play into other peoples' work?)
>Furthermore, mathematicians aren't concerned with the results of their work, they just do it for the sake of it.
The first pages of any paper are the motivation to why they're studying it in the first place. Pure mathematicians don't necessarily have their head in the clouds; most of their results are motivated by some problem that has relevance/use to other people.
>Physicists and other scientists also require some experience to actually, properly become masters of their discipline.
How do I know you're one of those "math is for autists" people?

You can't just graduate and become a mathematician either. There are a million hoops and years of work you need to do past school to be taken seriously and respected. Everyone has their work.

>> No.10376324

>>10376225
>until you've got a good number of publications and at least a PhD under your belt.
in other words, you have to remain in academia for long enough. This doesn't speak of experience.

>It's all about experience. It's all about problems. It's all about collaboration and bouncing ideas off of each other.
You're romanticizing it, and you know it. Math is certainly not about experience, but pure, raw logical capacity. Creativity is involved, too, but always bounded by logic. You can't just experience your way into the pure, groundbreaking math.

>and in the most groundbreaking mathematics, there's an element of design (what's fundamental to my ideas, what isn't, what notions do I really need to make from scratch, and how will these structures play into my work, how will they play into other peoples' work?)
you're being way too generous in what you call "design". Design is an iterative and creative process that may or may not lead to the best solution to a problem. In math, an statement is either true or it isn't true from the axioms that build it. In physics and engineering, problems are open-ended and only with time and experience can you reach the better solutions.

>most of their results are motivated by some problem that has relevance/use to other people.
Yes, and most of this "motivation " is within math itself, and not applicable outside math. The "other people" you mentioned are just other mathematicians.

>How do I know you're one of those "math is for autists" people?
I love math, and I disagree with that sentiment. To me, math is the greatest tool engineers have, and any engineer worth a dime respects math and the work mathematicians do, even pure and theoretical math.

>There are a million hoops and years of work you need to do past school to be taken seriously and respected.
The bureaucracy built around academia has no influence on your capacity as a mathematician.

>> No.10376365

>>10376324
>in other words, you have to remain in academia for long enough. This doesn't speak of experience.
Not necessarily. A lot of this is just publications, so that can be anywhere from a national lab, industry research, or academia. Funny how you discount academia as not being experience, when it's an industry/business all its own. The experience you develop talking to your peers there isn't any different; you still have clients, you still have expectations from your grants, you still have deadlines, etc.
>You're romanticizing it, and you know it. Math is certainly not about experience, but pure, raw logical capacity
Lol, if you think this, then you've bought into this romantic idea of the mathematician atop the ivory tower. Ideas come in groups, nobody is a lone wolf, and mathematics is done via group meetings over blackboards, video conferences, etc. It's not pure, raw logic. Most of it is "I read this book, and it was going in a similar direction. This could help flesh out our different idea." or trying out what other people did. Most of it is reading and long term work that you accumulate in notes. It's not just "thinking hard" for a long time. It's a lot of labor to gather resources and talk with other people.
>Creativity is involved, too, but always bounded by logic
Okay now I know you're spouting bullshit and have absolutely nothing about how academia works
> In math, an statement is either true or it isn't true from the axioms that build it.
If you're saying that there are true and false statement within axioms, then you might be correct, but even this can be broken down. If you want to check that out, look at efforts in model theory. Math is less about """truth"""" in a strict sense and different expressions of multiple facets of some "truth." Truth is a nebulous concept while mathematics aims to be clean in its statements (though the process is not very clean at all)
(cont)

>> No.10376380

>>10370436
>left
Classic timeless toy that has brought joy and inspired creativity in millions and millions of individuals of all ages.
>right
Shitty small version of a sports stadium

>> No.10376383

>>10376324
>>10376365
(cont)
>You can't just experience your way into the pure, groundbreaking math.
Well, like all things, you have to work for it.
> Design is an iterative and creative process that may or may not lead to the best solution to a problem.
I agree, but until you get to the point where you're exploring "new math," you won't really understand. You're going to have to trust me on this. It is in a sense iterative, and it has to work with old structures. More on the "it's true or not:" math isn't a competition or game we play to be "the most correct." It's an open ended study people do because it's the core of reasoning. That's it. It's way more than a narrow "right or wrong."
> In physics and engineering, problems are open-ended and only with time and experience can you reach the better solutions.
I fail to see the difference in math. People do this all the time with old papers and ideas. This is like the hallmark of mathematical science.
>Yes, and most of this "motivation " is within math itself, and not applicable outside math. The "other people" you mentioned are just other mathematicians.
Lol that's dismissive. Mathematicians do collabs all the time. Pure people like doing pure work on applied problems. You speak from complete ignorance of the process.
>The bureaucracy built around academia has no influence on your capacity as a mathematician
I wasn't referring to that. I mean that you need to work with people, get to know the community, see what work people have done, learn the themes, learn what people are talking about, etc. etc. before you can meaningfully contribute. Math is more than just solving problems that pop from the void; it's a long term process of comprehending the problems in front of us. Mathematicians are not lone wolves. More than ever, they have to work together for years to get anywhere.

>> No.10376408

>>10373339
Underrated

>> No.10376649

>>10370278
It's just a meme, like physicist hating chemist, etc.

>> No.10376676

>>10370278
Because of the constant bitching about math being hard and applicable to anything. The bitching about linear algebra being hard is quite annoying. I'm also an engineer myself and am angry at the current direction my field is taking which is away from first principles and math towards psychology. It's time for a purge.

>> No.10377144

They hate us cause they anus

>> No.10377168

>>10370278
Becasue while they are slaving away in grad school to get a bar tender salary we are living it up.

Company credit cards, Un-accrued PTO, Power over hot interns and secretaries, company cars, getting your plane tickets paid for to go meet with clients. Even if we get fired we just have to message some colleagues and get a job at a reputable company within hours. With a starting bonus.

>> No.10377199

>>10376380
its a lego stadium u tard

>> No.10377340

>>10373273
The fact they have to give you speed of light is proof that you're a 2nd year retard. I hope you drop out when you actually have to do scary calculus.

>> No.10377659

>>10371445
>QM, advanced solid state theory, semicond. physics you get in grad physics lectures to be able to understand what the fuck is happening at these places and how to inovate.

Does EE &/or CE cover these at all?

>> No.10379080

>>10370278
Have you heard of envy?

>> No.10379386

>>10370278
I don't think its just this board that hates engineers/engineering. I think engineers are somewhat arrogant and think very highly of themselves even though engineering is easy compared to most other STEM subjects. An example of this is when I was in my 3rd year, I was revising dome fluids and out of curiosity, I looked at what they were teaching to the maths students at the same university for fluids as well. It was much more rigorous to what they taught us. It helps the mathematicians gain a deeper understanding of the subject while engineers are just mostly taught the basics and how to apply it in real world situations.

Engineering is definitely more fun and provides students with skills and practical experience that industry might be looking for, but it isn't something I'd call "difficult"

>> No.10379405

>>10379386
> but it isn't something I'd call "difficult"
>apply something as random as an earthquake to design a building that's in a soil you know very little about and with a material you know very little about. Do it all in a safe and economic manner possibly in a very short period of time while working with dozens of people with other interests all of whom are trying to scam you.
Not difficult, yeah.

>> No.10379412

Self-loathing

>> No.10379416

>>10371445
>these fields at the top are where the >300k starting meme is reality.
Can you provide a source?

>> No.10379428

>>10377168
What do you do?

>> No.10379429

>>10379405
Butyou aren't taught that in university.

>> No.10379434

>>10379429
what does that have to do with anything?
you said
> engineering is easy compared to most other STEM subjects
also, at my uni, they teach stuff that i mentioned. As well as they can, since that can't be taught in a straightforward manner.

>> No.10379443

>>10377199
His point is that inventing the legos themselves is of much greater value than any individual thing that's made with legos

>> No.10379460

>>10379443
well, that's debatable. For example, colors in themselves mean nothing if we don't use them in a way only humans can. For example, electromagnetism would be useless to us if we were bipods who couldn't do anything but walk around and eat grass all day. Also, scientists don't invent things, they discover natural laws. All inventions are applied, therefore engineering. But legos were invented by a carpenter.

>> No.10379490

>>10379405
Surely earthquakes can be modeled mathematically? Properties of a vast majority of commonly used materials are definitely known. Outsourcing and finding suppliers is not an engineer's job. Earthquake-proof buildings are nothing new

>> No.10379510

>>10379434
But engineering is easy compared to Maths and Physics, hence the reason a lot of high priority engineering problems are currently being tackled by mathematicians rather than engineers

>> No.10379519

>>10379490
>Surely earthquakes can be modeled mathematically?
that's the point. They can, but for 99,99% of all structures it's waaaaay to expensive to get any of the parameters important to accurately asses things. Imagine having a differential equation, but not having boundary conditions, it means nothing in itself.
>Properties of a vast majority of commonly used materials are definitely known
Oh really? Tell me please how and why does shear strength of reinforced concrete wall degrade with dynamic effects? Or things like the following: you order 2 steel rods of "same quality" from 2 different suppliers and test both of them, one fails at a way lower stress 8it was done with more rods, not just one). It's great when you can test them, but again 99,99% of time you can't, you ask for some quality, but it might not be there.
>Earthquake-proof buildings are nothing new
sure. If you have an infinite amount of money and time. Just look at the effect of the new zealand earthquake not long ago, or l'aquila in italy, or chile (i think in 2009).

>> No.10379537

>>10379510
>But engineering is easy compared to Maths and Physics
I'm trying to tell you it is not. With math you know what you're working with. But when you have 2 days to design something, you need to really carefully think and you always pull an answer out of your own ass since you can't know for sure. If that's easy then you're not like me. I LOVE to do rigorous math, i wish i could use it for all my projects, you know why? because I could know what i'm doing. It's hard when you have to sign something real that can cause death of others, but you've had so little time that you can only asses it very roughly. To be able to do that and still produce great things is hard. It's like asking: "how many water do you need for 100 people?" It really depends, for how long? are they kids or adults? do they have to just drink it or shower/cook with it? Imagine not knowing any that, but you have to answer the first question. Hard, right?

>> No.10379544

>>10370278
If you are new of the new Intertubes generation that think a "meme" is an image with text on it, you will never understand.

>> No.10379655

>>10379519
You keep repeating 99.99% but I'm not sure how accurate that is. Also, I'm sure you know that apart from mathematical modelling, there are other techniques that exist in helping solve these problems, such as computer simulations.

Is what you're asking "why concrete breaks when it moves"? As everybody knows, concrete is great under compression but can fail easily under tension or if shear forces are applied to it. The "dynamic effects" can be very broad, I'm guessing you mean something like cyclic loading? If that is the case, then surely concrete by itself can fail due to it not being in its desired operating regime (i.e. it isn't constantly in compression). The rebar that reinforces it can fail through fatigue induced by the cyclic loading. For the question about 2 steel rods, "quality" can still be very vague and I'm not sure what type of failure you are talking about. It could be something like buckling or it could be a fracture, I'm not sure. The problem most likely lies in manufacturing of the steel. Surface finishing is very important and if it is not done properly, cracks can remain on the surface and can form stress concentrations when the object is exposed to some form of external load. When these areas of high stresses exceed UTS, failure can occur. So essentially, if both were the same type of steel with identical carbon content and crystalline structure, manufacturing processes can play a large part in failure of the finished product. Having said so, generally engineers use values form databooks. Manufacturers can also provide you with properties of their products including the basics such as yield strength and UTS. If your employer gets your products from a reputable source, then these types of problems will never occur. These are definitely problems university will introduce you to, but these rarely happen in the real world due to preexisting partnerships between suppliers and customers (your employer).

>> No.10379720

>>10379537
I think your idea of "difficult" is slightly different from mine. I am an engineer too, and I definitely agree with you when you say that uncertainties and unknown parameters that exist during the design process can make things very difficult. That being said, in engineering, you can always carry on from someone else's previous work. If you are asked to design something in a very short amount of time, you can use a similar project from a previous time as a reference. Engineering at university does not prepare you by developing your technical knowledge. By the time you graduate, you will realise that you have learned very few things that they already didn't know/didn't have an intuition for. University teaches you how to think like an engineer. What an engineer does is solve real life problems, and when a client wants you to design something for them, you should always be ready to extract as much relevant information from them as possible such that you aren't left there with very little information and very little time while having to design something that can endanger someone's life.

My definition of "difficult" is more to do with the technical side. One of my modules was taught in tandem with the mathematics department and grasping some of the concepts was especially difficult for me. I envy the mathematicians because they are able to understand these concepts at the most fundamental levels while engineers are not taught that way at university.

>> No.10380083

Any HVAC Engineers here?
Thoughts on it?
I'm working in a Wholesaler and they said after a year they'll pay for my schooling if my grades are good enough and i'm interested in space and all the other types of autism related to tanks and planes

>> No.10380107

>>10370318
>upper level math
>physics majors

Lol.

>> No.10380228

You bitches keep making tele entrences but no exits.

>> No.10380570

>>10370278
Because it's a shitty career choice for brainlets that doesn't pay half as well as programming.

t. mechanical engineer thinking of becoming a software developer

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action